Freeware to merge two portraits into a realistic composite!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wildlife Sensitive, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    his email indicates new zealand, but that doesn't matter.

    if someone uses the software beyond the 30 day trial, then they are
    getting something to which they are not entitled, and that *by itself*
    is illegal.

    the dmca just adds another violation to the list.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    no it doesn't. it just takes being computer savvy and knowing what to
    look for and deleting it, in addition to the obvious uninstalling the
    software.

    deleting a file does not need anything that isn't already included with
    the computer, so there is no need for banned tools.
    which ones?

    and regardless, creative suite is one 30 day trial.

    it's pretending to be someone you're not for material gain, so yes,
    it's fraud.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    exactly.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #43
  4. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    nonsense. of course they let you and anyone else read it.

    why would they not let someone read the license agreement?

    it's on their web site. it might take a bit of searching to find it but
    that doesn't mean they are prohibiting you from reading it.
    do you have any evidence that adobe's license agreement is not valid?

    didn't think so.
    using a second email to obtain a second 30 day trial *is* fraud.

    you are lying about your identity to get something to which you are not
    entitled.

    it's *one* 30 day trial.

    it is *not* as many trials as you want by generating multiple emails.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #44
  5. No it does not. It is not a false statement of material fact-- those are
    all "your" emails. I assume, but have not idea, that adobe actually
    sends something to those email addresses. The statement is not untrue. I
    in my life have had numerous email addresses, and I can get many more at
    a moment's notice. It is not deception-- I supplied exactly what they
    asked for. The alleged victim might have placed some reliance on my
    statement, but if they relied on my email address being my only email
    address, they were certainly not justified in doing that. Finally,
    injury is pretty difficult as well. My downloading and using their
    software does not injure them-- they are in exactly the same situation
    as before I downloaded it.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #45
  6. How is that anything but exactly what Adobe says they want you to do?
    Where do you sign an obligation to purchase if you use the free trial?
    That is like saying that if you drink our of one of those little paper
    cups in the grocery store where they hand you free trials of orange
    juice that you are then obligated to buy that orange juice?

    Again, your pejorative language. "Rob 'em" is your interpretation of
    what they are doing, with little basis except your own opinion as to
    your belief in the ethics of the action.

    But you were not discussing ethics, you were discussing law. They are
    not the same.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #46
  7. I am sorry, but I fail to see those words, or even an approximation of
    those words anywhere in what you quote.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #47
  8. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    when someone uses multiple emails with the intent to obtain something
    to which they are not entitled, it's fraud.

    it's not a complicated concept.
    it does when you use software you didn't pay for.

    you get *one* 30 day trial. you don't get multiple 30 day trials.

    if you want to use the software beyond 30 days, you must *pay* for it.
    adobe makes that *very* clear.

    if you manage to fool them into getting more than one free trial and
    continue to use the software for free, then you have committed fraud.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #48
  9. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    you aren't obligated to buy anything, whether it's adobe or the grocery
    store.

    what you can't do is get multiple free trials or multiple samples of
    food instead of buying it.

    i guarantee you that if you partake in the 'free samples' all afternoon
    for a 'free lunch', you are going to find that it wasn't quite as free
    as you might have thought.

    ethics come into play when someone is trying to justify illegal
    activities as being legitimate.

    based on what you've posted, it's clear that *you* have *no* ethics and
    will happily rip anyone off for any reason and think there's absolutely
    nothing wrong with it.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #49
  10. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    In other words you are asserting that "protective measures" are being
    "bypasased" even though you only have your own opinion to support the
    notion that there even are "protective measures".

    This is like saying "the burglar bypassed the alarm system" when there
    was no reason to believe that there was even an alarm system to bypass.
    Keep people from copying the software that they don't want to be copied
    of course.
    They make no effort whatsoever to prevent it so the default assumption
    is that it is allowed.
    Where in their literature do they say that accessing the trial multiple
    times using different email addresses is prohibited?
    Who is "deceiving"? If you think that using multiple email addresses in
    the modern world is "deception" you need to get out more.

    And why is something only allowed if there is an express provision
    allowing it?
    Well, then what makes you so sure that it's "fraud"?
    To me there is a good faith agreement that this is an advertisement, to
    be treated as such.
    Can you state the specific provision of the license that is violated?
    And can you provide one example of a successful prosecution based on
    this theory of law?
    Now you are going afield from using a different email address.
    "Defeating the ability to identify the machine" is rather different from
    using "" vs "" to log in to the Adobe
    site.
    That may be but it is lawful in the United States to have shortcomings
    of "moral character". Having such does not constitute "fraud". If it
    did half our Presidents would be guilty of it.
    That is what Adobe of course wants you to do.
    Nobody has suggested that it is. It is an advertisement.
    Oddly, I did that once. Not intentionally but I was driving past the
    dealer and saw something interesting on the lot (a used 330GTC to be
    precise). I was looking at it and a salesman came out and asked me if I
    wanted to drive it. I was 17 at the time so you can guess my answer. I
    didn't have my camera with me at the time so a week or so later I came
    back to take some pictures of it and a different salesman came out and
    made the same offer, with the same result.

    I guess by your lights I committed "fraud" by not telling the salesman
    that I had already driven it.

    But now you bring up "stealing". If the proposal was that one download
    the trial, hack it, and use it forever then you would have a point
    relevant to "stealing" and in fact that would be a clear violation of
    the DMCA. But that is not the scenario under discussion.

    The scenario under discussion is the simple submission of a different
    email address to run the trial a second time.
    You are asserting that a crime is being committed. The point is that
    your asserting that a crime is being committed doesn't make it so.
    And what is the likelihood that they will prevail in an attempt at
    prosecution?
    You are now arguing "license violation". You were on about "fraud"
    earlier. Now which is it, is it a civil matter involving breach of
    contract or is it a criminal matter involving "fraud"?

    You don't even seem to be able to keep straight the difference between
    something being immoral, illegal, or a breach of contract.
    Please provide an example of ASCAP successfully taking action against
    someone for using two different email addresses to re-access a 30 day
    trial.
    That may be the "good faith issue" you have not demonstrated that any
    law has been violated, merely asserted that since you don't approve of a
    certain behavior it must be a crime.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #50
  11. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    Fine, we are all agreed that anybody who acesses trialware multiple
    times by using different email addresses is an asshole. If you had
    stuck with that and not asserted that such behavior constituted a crime
    then you could have saved much off-topic discussion.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #51
  12. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    I find myself wondering what one is expected to do with it during this
    trial if one is not allowed to "process images". Is one supposed to get
    stoned and look at the pretty screen or something?

    If he had said "process images and sell them" it would have been another
    story--that would have been a pretty clear violation of the "non-
    commercial" clause, but that does not appear to be the proposed
    scenario.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #52
  13. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    Which is nice but unless Adobe buys an island somewhere and sets
    themseleves up as a soveriegn state they do not get to establish the
    laws.

    Fine, tell us every item on the list and every element of each item that
    is met by the proposed action.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #53
  14. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    No, actually I don't think it's fraud at all. What I said was that if
    obtaining a second trial version is fraud, then using a trial for a
    project with no intent to purchase is just as fraudulent.
    That supports my point...that using the second trial is *not* fraud.
    You should give your irony meter a tuning. I don't believe either use
    is fraud.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #54
  15. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Are you sure you're aware of who is saying what?
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #55
  16. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    What's been mentioned that is illegal?
    What has William Unruh posted that gives you *that* impression?

    Actually, no one in thread - let alone William - has posted any
    comments that indicate that they'd rip anyone off. Exposing the fact
    that a second trial can be obtained by using a second email address is
    not espousing it. Telling someone to use a trial version for a
    project is somewhat shady, but not really unethical. It's just a bit
    hypocritical from someone who calls "fraud" for using a second trial.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #56
  17. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Well, Adobe doesn't say that a person can't use a second email address
    to obtain use of a second trial. However, you *know* that it is not
    Adobe's intent to allow use of the trial strictly to complete a
    project and that it is not Adobe's intent to permit a second trial
    using a second email address.

    It's an ethics question, and your ethics are notable only by their
    absence.
    Weasel logic. If they didn't want second trials using second email
    addresses, they could require verification of the name of the holder
    of the email address and block names instead of email addresses.

    Adobe is probably unconcerned about the use of second trials because
    getting people to try and use the product is the objective of the
    trial. The more they try it, the more interested they may become.
    Adobe just isn't going to tell people how the second trial can be
    obtained.

    With the technology available to them, Adobe could prevent second
    downloads using a second Adobe ID. They haven't bothered, though.
    That leads me to conclude that they are far less concerned than you
    seem to be.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #57
  18. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I don't think nospam actually understands how the system works. It's
    been quite a while since I tried an Adobe trial since I have upgraded
    my Adobe products progressively, but as I remember the process all you
    supply when you download a trial is your Adobe ID.

    That is set up separately, and there's no proscription against having
    more than one Adobe ID. I have one that I just use to participate in
    the Adobe Forums that allows me to post. It was set up using the
    email addy provided by my internet provider. I could set up a second
    Adobe ID using my gmail addy. I haven't done so, though.

    Many people have more than one email address. I've got three that I
    know about, but one is a Yahoo address that I haven't checked in
    years.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #58
  19. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Hmmm. Where does it prohibit obtaining a second trial using a second
    email address? Where's the part that says "User may not download and
    use a second trial version by applying using a second email address"?
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #59
  20. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    You're drifting, Duck. Obtaining a second 30-day trial by apply using
    a second - legitimate - email address is not using a "perpetual trial
    evaluation". It doesn't rise to fraud (a criminal offense) and is not
    a violation of a licensing agreement. You don't agree not to obtain a
    second trial when obtaining the first.

    If you do feel there's some licensing violation, then show me the
    license agreement that states that a second trial use is a violation.

    Would Adobe like it if they'd bother to check names against the email
    address? Probably not. Would they do anything about it? Probably
    not. What they'd probably do is hope the person would get hooked on
    the program and join the cloud.

    Using a pirate copy is a completely different issue. That's perpetual
    use without Adobe ever being remunerated. There are extant laws, not
    just Adobe policy, involved here.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.